THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF PROPOSALS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1649, 30 August 1887, Page 3

THE FARMERS AND THE TARIFF PROPOSALS.

We are very glad that Sir Julius Yogel took the opportunity when addressing, by invitation, the largest public meeting ever assembled m Ashburton, to disabuse the minds of the farmers, of certain false notions which had been sedulously instilled into them by the advocates of Freetrade. Of course, it would not do for these worthy gentlemen to tell the farmers that the Alpha and Omega of Freetrade was cheapness — cheap labour, cheap production, cheap manufactures, cheap necessaries of life — because they would have a very strong suspicion that the farmers would tell them that wheat was too cheap already for its cultivation to be a profitable investment for capital and labour. This would not suit Freetraders at all, so the only way they can get at the farmers is by representing to them how injuriously the tariff proposals of the Government will affect them, that they will not receive the slightest benefit from them, but rather the reverse. In reference to this Sir Julius observed : — " I have endeavoured to show to them that the large and correct view is to consider what will benefit the population as a whole and to feel convinced that as the population becomes more prosperous, as mote persons are employed, and are consequently able to spend more money, m that direction lies the manner m which they are likely to attain the greatest prosperity, by having a local market, and not depending on the caprices of distant markets such as India, the United States, or Great Britain. But he denied altogether that the proposed Tariff was not, as far as was reasonably possible, framed m the interests of the farmers. Such articles as it seemed to the Goverment would be benefited by increased duties were considered on the basis, first, of yielding larger revenue, and m the next place what would be to the advantage of all." Sir Julius pointed out that amongst the articles which had been the most ridiculed, he would name those which came under the head farinaceous food — cornflour, starch, and sago— and he had it on incontestable authority that the major portion of this faroaceous food, which is sold under patented names, was essentially composed ot the potato, and he did not see why the local tuber should not be used m preference to that grown elsewhere. There were other articles included m the tariff— such as fruits, jams, pickles, honey, preserved meats, and preserved milk — all of which could be produced m the country, with great advantage and economy, of a superior quality. Sir Julius, while on this portion of his subject, read a letter which had appeared m the " Otago Daily Times," m which the case was so well stated that he offered no apology for troubling his audience with it. The letter ran thus : — "Sir, — So constantly is it asserted that the farmers would be losers by a protective policy that I trust you will kindly allow me briefly to point c a few reasons upon which many 6 us base a contrary opinion. No doubt outgoings would be slightly increased, but this not nearly to the extent that some suppose. The typical working farmer lives with his family mainly upon the produce of his farm. He might have to disburse a few shillings a year extra upon cotton materials, and this would be the chief item of his increased expenditure, for already boots, woollen goods, and agricultural implements of colonial manufacture are, m a majority of cases, from their greater durability, deservedly preferred, and upon the last the experience of other countries shows that protection would, by increasing competition, exercise a cheapening influence. On the other hand, we believe that although protection is by no means such a vital question for the farmer as it is for the townsman, the former must necessarily share m the prosperity of the latter. With a revival of better times would come Adam Smith's corner-stone of prosperity — an increased home market, and an improved sale for butter, eggs, bay, fruit, etc. This would far more than recoup the farmer the .small additional cost of his household expenditure^ say nothing of those bye-crops which under Protection ha could grow at a profit, such as linseed, mustard, etc. Again, United States statistics establish the fact that the value of farm land maintains a constant ratio with the number of manufactories m the district — a fact so appreciated by the small freeholders that they are almost to a man Protectionists, as recent investigations and the hopeless minority of Freetraders m Congress conclusively show. Can we take a better guide m matter of selfinterest than the shrewd American ? "